The closing of American academia

[doom&gloom]

Okay, I give, seriously, WTF do these universities do with all the money?

I think I found my new calling... unionize all these serfs. Man could I collect on that kind of deal!

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...749246453.html

It is 2011 and I'm sitting in the Palais des Congres in Montreal, watching anthropologists talk about structural inequality.

The American Anthropological Association meeting is held annually to showcase research from around the world, and like thousands of other anthropologists, I am paying to play: $650 for airfare, $400 for three nights in a "student" hotel, $70 for membership, and $94 for admission. The latter two fees are student rates. If I were an unemployed or underemployed scholar, the rates would double.

The theme of this year's meeting is "Traces, Tidemarks and Legacies." According to the explanation on the American Anthropological Association website, we live in a time when "the meaning and location of differences, both intellectually and morally, have been rearranged". As the conference progresses, I begin to see what they mean. I am listening to the speaker bemoan the exploitative practices of the neoliberal model when a friend of mine taps me on the shoulder.
"I spent almost my entire salary to be here," she says.

My friend is an adjunct. She has a PhD in anthropology and teaches at a university, where she is paid $2100 per course. While she is a professor, she is not a Professor. She is, like 67 per cent of American university faculty, a part-time employee on a contract that may or may not be renewed each semester. She receives no benefits or health care.

According to the Adjunct Project, a crowdsourced website revealing adjunct wages - data which universities have long kept under wraps - her salary is about average. If she taught five classes a year, a typical full-time faculty course load, she would make $10,500, well below the poverty line. Some adjuncts make more. I have one friend who was offered $5000 per course, but he turned it down and requested less so that his children would still qualify for food stamps.

*snip*

[shiny!]

Re: The closing of American academia

OK, I'll bite. What do they do with all the money???

[dcarrigg]

Re: The closing of American academia

OK, I'll bite. What do they do with all the money???

More than half of college presidents make more than the President of the United States. In fact, one fun thing to add to the college search criteria might be college executive pay. If the president makes too much, you probably don't want to send your kid there, because you know for a fact that the people actually teaching your kid are not valued at all.



$9,000,000 per year for a basketball coach who loses every year? $5,000,000 per year for an investment advisor (regardless of the performance of said investments)? $60,000,000 for new dorms with hardwood floors, central air, private bathrooms, and kitchenettes? $1,000,000 per year for the President's Assistant Vice President for Business Relations? Another $1,000,000 per year on the university branding initiative?

You betcha.

Yet they can't seem to find money for the pesky faculty.

Or to attract students good enough to move them up in the rankings.

It's the same thing that has been happening in every industry over the past 30 years though.

Funneling money out at the top, going into debt, and losing track of your mission is as in vogue as ever.

Here are some more "fun facts:"





The graph above is fun, because the Green are almost all Catholic Schools (run by nuns and priests who take little to no salary). The blue consist of the big names, most of the Ivy League, schools in California and a few other relatively sensible schools. The yellow has a couple of the pricier ivies and schools in NYC, Texas, and the South. The red is a mix of no-name schools and mid-tier private schools in New England, New York, and Florida.

You might notice that I've left out the Midwest. Well, that's because the graph only has private schools. And the midwest is where public schools dominate and are strongest in this country due to Germanic heritage and tradition. But don't fear. If you're at a public school whose president makes more than $1,000,000 per year, you can be assured, you're in the midwest.

[don]

Re: The closing of American academia

FIRE, as in Finance, Insurance, Real estate and Education - never more fitting than now . . .




Outstanding student debt has risen to $550 billion up from the $440 billion in 2008. Total student debt hovers around $1 trillion. In contrast other debt such as mortgage, auto, and credit card has decreased, partly due to defaults.

The reasons are simple, tuition rates continue to soar and student debt is not eligible for bankruptcy; therefore, truly negotiating with the debtor is discouraged. Hence, regardless of how low an interest rate may be the debt is increasing as wages stagnate or decrease which helps promote this current ever-growing debt crisis. In addition, our wealth gap widens burying the hopes and economic Purchasing Power of the educated youth. Consequently, the education which was supposed to make our country much more economically competitive is successfully accomplishing the opposite.


Source: WSJ

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: The closing of American academia

dcarrigg, you left off the public universities.
My alma mater has the highest paid president in that market.
They justify it because he is a rainmaker for private contributions, gathering up far more than his salary.
He really is a great leader getting great results, but 2 million a year for a public servant is beyond the pale.

All states AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming Highest-Paid Public-College Presidents, 2011 Fiscal Year
President		Total compensation
	1. E. Gordon Gee Ohio State University (2007–Present)	$1,992,221	Details
	2. Michael D. McKinney Texas A&M University system (2006–2011)	$1,966,347	Details
	3. Graham B. Spanier Pennsylvania State University at University Park(1995–2011)	$1,068,763	Details
	4. Lee T. Todd Jr. University of Kentucky (2001–2011)	$972,106	Details
	5. Mary Sue Coleman University of Michigan system (2002–Present)	$845,105	Details
	6. Kent R. Hance Texas Tech University system (2006–Present)	$757,740	Details
	7. Francisco G. Cigarroa University of Texas system (2009–Present)	$751,680	Details
	8. Robert H. Bruininks University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (2002–2011)	$747,955	Details
	9. John C. Hitt University of Central Florida (1992–Present)	$741,500	Details
	10. Charles W. Steger Virginia Tech (2000–Present)	$738,603	Details

[DSpencer]

Re: The closing of American academia

dcarrigg, you left off the public universities.
My alma mater has the highest paid president in that market.
They justify it because he is a rainmaker for private contributions, gathering up far more than his salary.
He really is a great leader getting great results, but 2 million a year for a public servant is beyond the pale.

Thanks for posting, I was curious as that's my alma mater as well. It's also one of, if not the, biggest universities in the world in any given year. However, I've always wondered if the size of the organization actually makes the CEO/President any more valuable. It seems like there's only so much that one person can really do no matter how big the organization.

[don]

Re: The closing of American academia

an opinion that "size matters' from another, related, field of FIRE . . .

By WILLIAM B. HARRISON Jr.

BANKS aren’t always popular even in the best of times, but the anger of recent years is unprecedented. The anger, while understandable, has fueled the misguided idea that we should break up the nation’s largest banks.

The argument is simple and sound-bite ready: In the years before the crisis, greedy bankers used their political muscle to grow from small, specialized banks into giant, all-purpose financial institutions. This transformation led to the financial crisis because banks became too big to manage and too big to fail. If we break them back up, we will eliminate the risk of future crises.
The problem is that every part of this argument is based on a fallacy.

The first fallacy is that the emergence of large, universal banks — combining commercial banking with investment banking — was an artificial or unnatural development. In 1990, there were 15,000 banks in the United States; this fragmented market meant that banks could not achieve economies of scale or easily serve clients on a national or global level.

The consolidation that took place was driven by the market’s needs and represented an evolution toward greater efficiency in banking, just as companies like Amazon, Starbucks and Home Depot brought efficiency to retail. Even now, the American financial services industry is far less consolidated than its peers across most of the developed world.

A second fallacy is that these large, universal institutions were primarily to blame for the financial crisis. As most serious observers acknowledge, a combination of bad lending and risk management by banks, poor regulation and ill-advised consumer behavior all played a role. None of the first institutions to fail during the crisis — Countrywide, Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, the American International Group — were universal banks.

A third fallacy is that large financial institutions have become too complex to manage. A company of any size needs robust management and controls to manage complexity. Remember that smaller financial institutions — look at MF Global, Bear Stearns, Knight Capital — have had their share of risk-management failures too.

In fact, large global institutions have often proved more resilient than others because their diversified business model ensures that losses in one part of the enterprise can be cushioned by revenues in other parts. In some cases, complexity can be an antidote to risk, rather than a cause of it.

Other criticisms of big banks that are often aired similarly don’t stand up to scrutiny. Commentators point to the inordinate influence large banks have on the political process. They fear that regulators are cowed by a large bank’s position and power. These critics seem to believe that regulators are incapable of making independent judgments. In the real world, this is just false.That said, it is perfectly appropriate and indeed necessary for regulators and politicians to engage with experts and industry practitioners to learn more about the issues. Regulators are not cowed, but they generally do need more expertise and better collaboration with one another to carry out their responsibilities successfully.

Another criticism I often hear is that large banks receive huge, implicit subsidies from the government and can borrow more cheaply because they are seen as “too big to fail.” But the facts don’t bear this out. An AA-rated bank deemed too big to fail by pundits cannot borrow any more cheaply than an AA-rated industrial company. One can see it every day in their bond spreads.

Finally, some critics have called for a revival of the Glass-Steagall Act (which separated commercial and investment banking) and a tougher version of the Volcker Rule (which would bar banks from using their money to make bets in their own trading account), without, it seems, having read either. The Glass-Steagall Act (repealed in 1999) prohibited commercial banks from underwriting debt and equity issues, a very safe activity; it did not prohibit banks from trading, engaging in derivatives, leveraging themselves or making bad loans. And while I agree with the spirit of the Volcker Rule, banks need to make markets for their customers and should be allowed to hedge their risks, as long as the hedging activity is specific to those risks.

Large banks invest billions of dollars to deliver the products and services consumers want — investments that only a company that has achieved scale can make. Scale allows them to deliver, like big-box stores, more innovation, greater convenience and consistent, reliable service.

Breaking up some big banks would hurt their customers, clients and the broader economy. It would actually inject new risks into the financial system. If today’s universal, multifunctional banks are forced back into being specialized lending institutions, they will need to find new ways to deliver returns to shareholders. That could easily lead to an increase in risky lending.

America’s largest businesses operate around the world and simply have to work with international banks. If they can’t work with a global bank based in America, then they will work with one based overseas. Losing that business to other countries would damage our national competitiveness, economic vitality, job creation and clients who want a choice of financial services. One of America’s great strengths is that we are home to the broadest, deepest and most efficient capital markets in the world. It’s a competitive advantage that we can’t afford to lose.

William B. Harrison Jr. was an architect of the 2000 merger that created JPMorgan Chase and was the bank’s chairman and chief executive. He retired in 2006.

[lektrode]

Re: The closing of American academia

an opinion that "size matters' from another, related, field of FIRE . . .

By WILLIAM B. HARRISON Jr.

BANKS aren’t always popular even in the best of times, but the anger of recent years is unprecedented. The anger, while understandable, has fueled the misguided idea that we should break up the nation’s largest banks.

(??? uh huh... 'misguided'... shur, when one profits handsomely - rhymes w 'ransomly' - anything that disturbs that gravytrain is OBVIOUSLY 'misguided' )


The argument is simple and sound-bite ready: In the years before the crisis, greedy bankers used their political muscle to grow from small, specialized banks into giant, all-purpose financial institutions. This transformation led to the financial crisis because banks became too big to manage and too big to fail. If we break them back up, we will eliminate the risk of future crises.

The problem is that every part of this argument is based on a fallacy.

The first fallacy is that the emergence of large, universal banks — combining commercial banking with investment banking — was an artificial or unnatural development. In 1990, there were 15,000 banks in the United States; this fragmented market meant that banks could not achieve economies of scale or easily serve clients on a national or global level.

(???? HUH!!... what, the biggest market-makers in the world, couldnt gitter done = pure BS!)

The consolidation that took place was driven by the market’s needs and represented an evolution toward greater efficiency in banking, just as companies like Amazon, Starbucks and Home Depot brought efficiency to retail. Even now, the American financial services industry is far less consolidated than its peers across most of the developed world.

A second fallacy is that these large, universal institutions were primarily to blame for the financial crisis. As most serious observers acknowledge, a combination of bad lending and risk management by banks, poor regulation and ill-advised consumer behavior all played a role. None of the first institutions to fail during the crisis — Countrywide, Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, the American International Group — were universal banks.

A third fallacy is that large financial institutions have become too complex to manage. A company of any size needs robust management and controls to manage complexity. Remember that smaller financial institutions — look at MF Global, Bear Stearns, Knight Capital — have had their share of risk-management failures too.

(yeah, "smaller" shysters couldnt really bring down the system - even if they did run hundreds of billions of 'funny' transactions - we can just blame that on 'regulatory failure', right? - esp if your 'regulators' are appointed by 'the other party'...)


In fact, large global institutions have often proved more resilient than others because their diversified business model ensures that losses in one part of the enterprise can be cushioned by revenues in other parts. In some cases, complexity can be an antidote to risk, rather than a cause of it.

(uh huh.. esp when your risk is laid-off onto some 'complex' derivitive/counter-party risk contract, that the underwriter has NO LEGAL BASIS, nor capital to underwrite - and then gets the NY fed to go to bat for ya, when its discovered just how many trillions are at stake - NEVER MIND JUST WHOS BONUSES and 'profit margins' ARE AT STAKE - right???)

Other criticisms of big banks that are often aired similarly don’t stand up to scrutiny. Commentators point to the inordinate influence large banks have on the political process. They fear that regulators are cowed by a large bank’s position and power. These critics seem to believe that regulators are incapable of making independent judgments. In the real world, this is just false.That said, it is perfectly appropriate and indeed necessary for regulators and politicians to engage with experts and industry practitioners to learn more about the issues. Regulators are not cowed, but they generally do need more expertise and better collaboration with one another to carry out their responsibilities successfully.

(oh thank gawd for the lobbyest brigade - what would we ever do without all them...)

Another criticism I often hear is that large banks receive huge, implicit subsidies from the government and can borrow more cheaply because they are seen as “too big to fail.” But the facts don’t bear this out. An AA-rated bank deemed too big to fail by pundits cannot borrow any more cheaply than an AA-rated industrial company. One can see it every day in their bond spreads.

(oh no, ZIRP allows EVERYBODY - in the banking cartel - to 'get their money for nuthin, like on MTV - thats the way ya do it, money fer nuthin, git yer chix fer free....' )

Finally, some critics have called for a revival of the Glass-Steagall Act (which separated commercial and investment banking) and a tougher version of the Volcker Rule (which would bar banks from using their money to make bets in their own trading account), without, it seems, having read either. The Glass-Steagall Act (repealed in 1999) prohibited commercial banks from underwriting debt and equity issues, a very safe activity; it did not prohibit banks from trading, engaging in derivatives, leveraging themselves or making bad loans. And while I agree with the spirit of the Volcker Rule, banks need to make markets for their customers and should be allowed to hedge their risks, as long as the hedging activity is specific to those risks.

(no, glass-steagall didnt prevent them from securitizing bad loans - but some in CONgress made that CERTAIN they would, and then BAILED THE MFr's out after they lost their bets)

Large banks invest billions of dollars to deliver the products and services consumers want — investments that only a company that has achieved scale can make. Scale allows them to deliver, like big-box stores, more innovation, greater convenience and consistent, reliable service.

Breaking up some big banks would hurt their customers, clients and the broader economy. It would actually inject new risks into the financial system. If today’s universal, multifunctional banks are forced back into being specialized lending institutions, they will need to find new ways to deliver returns to shareholders. That could easily lead to an increase in risky lending.

(damn this guys good, huh? bet he could sell s__t to a hog farmer.....)

America’s largest businesses operate around the world and simply have to work with international banks. If they can’t work with a global bank based in America, then they will work with one based overseas. Losing that business to other countries would damage our national competitiveness, economic vitality, job creation and clients who want a choice of financial services. One of America’s great strengths is that we are home to the broadest, deepest and most efficient capital markets in the world. It’s a competitive advantage that we can’t afford to lose.

William B. Harrison Jr. was an architect of the 2000 merger that created JPMorgan Chase and was the bank’s chairman and chief executive. He retired in 2006.

uh huh = got out when the gettin was fabulous
bet he's got a few billion stashed somewhere in the caymans too
wonder who he backed in 2008.....

biggest BS story on all this, that eye have seen, since 2007.

[astonas]

Re: The closing of American academia

Good info! Thanks for sharing it, dcarrigg!

[dcarrigg]

Re: The closing of American academia

dcarrigg, you left off the public universities.
My alma mater has the highest paid president in that market.
They justify it because he is a rainmaker for private contributions, gathering up far more than his salary.
He really is a great leader getting great results, but 2 million a year for a public servant is beyond the pale.

All states AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of ColumbiaFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming Highest-Paid Public-College Presidents, 2011 Fiscal Year
President		Total compensation
	1. E. Gordon Gee Ohio State University (2007–Present)	$1,992,221	Details
	2. Michael D. McKinney Texas A&M University system (2006–2011)	$1,966,347	Details
	3. Graham B. Spanier Pennsylvania State University at University Park(1995–2011)	$1,068,763	Details
	4. Lee T. Todd Jr. University of Kentucky (2001–2011)	$972,106	Details
	5. Mary Sue Coleman University of Michigan system (2002–Present)	$845,105	Details
	6. Kent R. Hance Texas Tech University system (2006–Present)	$757,740	Details
	7. Francisco G. Cigarroa University of Texas system (2009–Present)	$751,680	Details
	8. Robert H. Bruininks University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (2002–2011)	$747,955	Details
	9. John C. Hitt University of Central Florida (1992–Present)	$741,500	Details
	10. Charles W. Steger Virginia Tech (2000–Present)	$738,603	Details

You're right. I mentioned that the midwest is the region most likely to produce $1,000,000+ public university presidents, but I didn't list them.

In truth, I didn't for a reason, namely that these institutions are credible.

If you look at the list of private institutions I listed, not so much.

With Ohio State in the #1 spot, people might assume presidential pay breeds results.

With unranked Mountain State University in WV coming in over Harvard on the private side, I think the point is driven home a bit more clearly.

Regardless, when one looks at the data, it's obvious that presidential pay does not breed results.

In fact, when you think about it, I'm not sure how much upside a University President can ever bring to an institution.

Now, a bad one can bring you a lot of downside and damage your reputation.

But it's not like they are going to invent the next iPad from their office or anything. They're basically glorified spokesmen and labor negotiators.

Which is fine. It's an important job. And somebody has to do it.

But it's not worth $2,000,000 per year.

BTW, I just checked it, and TAMU's new President is in the $400k range. I didn't think they were that high, but I didn't realize that they were a couple of years ago. Here's the new top 10 list (damn, it's good to be a coach):

Clarence Byrne	PRESIDENT, TAMU	Athletic Director	$690,000
Michael Sherman	Athletic Director	COACH	$500,001
Kevin Sumlin	Athletic Director	COACH	$500,001
Mark Snyder	Athletic Director	Asst Coach	$500,001
Claude Blair	Athletic Director	COACH	$500,000
William Kennedy	Athletic Director	COACH	$500,000
Richard Loftin	PRESIDENT, TAMU	President	$424,999
Kliff Kingsbury	Athletic Director	Asst Coach	$400,000
James Sacchettini	BIOCHEM & BIOPHYSICS	Professor	$376,366
Kenneth Hall	Qatar Campus	Associate Dean	$364,001
Glynn Cyprien	Athletic Director	Asst Coach	$360,000

[don]

Re: The closing of American academia

Trading caps and gowns for mops

By Quentin Fottrell

After four years of college, many graduates are ending up in jobs that only require the ability to operate a cash register with a smile.
After commencement, a growing number young people say they have no choice but to take low-skilled jobs, according to a survey released this week.

And while 63% of “Generation Y” workers — those age 18 to 29 — have a bachelor’s degree, the majority of the jobs taken by graduates don’t require one, according to an online survey of 500,000 young workers carried out between July 2011 and July 2012 by PayScale.com, a company that collects data on salaries.

Another survey by Rutgers University came to the same conclusion: Half of graduates in the past five years say their jobs didn’t require a four-year degree and only 20% said their first job was on their career path.

The jobs that once went to recent college graduates are now more often going to older Americans. Over the past year, workers over 55 accounted for 58% of employment growth, says Dean Baker, a co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a nonprofit think tank in Washington, D.C. Why? Employers think older workers are a safer bet and more likely to stay, he says.

(and their healthcare has often been socialized - a concrete example of Hudson on the cost of American labor)

Rutgers Charts:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tra...ry_latest_news

[flintlock]

Re: The closing of American academia

College costs and housing are both perfect lessons on the impact of easy credit on pricing . This is nothing less than an education bubble. Just like with housing, it shows that when there is no pushback from consumers, prices will always rise quickly. Its the Wimpey principle. When people can "gladly pay Tuesday for a Hambuger today"', most will choose that route vs alternate paths. All FIRE has to do is make the credit available, as well as make sure their cronies in government raise significant barriers to entry so that competition is always limited. Our college system is a form of cronyism, as public funds are converted to private at an
alarming rate. This scam would be impossible without government loan guarantees, in the name of helping the people. Sound familiar?

The money goes into the pockets of dozens of directors, not just university presidents, as well as funds pet projects, questionable grants,etc. ie, a lot is just pissed away. Then again, life in general has become very expensive and having the best costs a lot. Not that having the best necessarily means you get a better education. But rather slick buildings, prestige, the appearance of lofty ideals, it can get expensive.

I'm reminded of a computer science dept head when I was at the University of GA. He showed up to teach maybe half the classes. In the end they just raised everyones grade a letter and called it a day. I didnt learn Jack. And this was a business school ranked among the top public schools at the time! So much wasted time. I have no doubt the same goes on today. Professors making $200-300k working essentally part time, while running a business on the side. But most are probably underpaid grad students, like the article mentions. The root of the cause is easy credit. People only resist higher prices when they are either forced to by necessity or when a cheaper alternative surfaces.

[cjppjc]

Re: The closing of American academia

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--...-football.html

It's not enough that Gee is easily America's highest-paid president of a public university. It's all the other trappings of sultanhood that come along with his $1.9 million a year salary. As the Daily News reported this week, the $7.7 million in expenses he's charged Ohio State since 2007 is what truly separates Dr. Bow Tie from his comparatively austere colleagues. (By comparison, the Daily News cited expense spending that was a mere fraction of that by Texas president Bill Powers and Michigan prez Mary Sue Coleman.)

The line item that jumped into the headlines Monday was the $64,000 spent by Ohio State on bow ties, bow tie cookies, O-H and bow tie pins. With good reason. But there are others worth pointing out.

The Dash particularly loved the $532 shower curtain for the guest bath in the president's mansion. Maybe it previously was a framed exhibit in The Louvre.

Gee has rung up an $813,000 tailgating tab. Don't think they're drinking PBR at those tailgates. And the cornhole boards are made of platinum.

The newspaper said Gee also dropped more than 10 grand on limo service while traveling from 2008-10, which means you aren't likely to see him schlepping around the airport rental car facility when the Buckeyes go bowling. (Oops, they're ineligible to go bowling until next season anyways.)

[doom&gloom]

Re: The closing of American academia

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--...-football.html

It's not enough that Gee is easily America's highest-paid president of a public university. It's all the other trappings of sultanhood that come along with his $1.9 million a year salary. As the Daily News reported this week, the $7.7 million in expenses he's charged Ohio State since 2007 is what truly separates Dr. Bow Tie from his comparatively austere colleagues. (By comparison, the Daily News cited expense spending that was a mere fraction of that by Texas president Bill Powers and Michigan prez Mary Sue Coleman.)

The line item that jumped into the headlines Monday was the $64,000 spent by Ohio State on bow ties, bow tie cookies, O-H and bow tie pins. With good reason. But there are others worth pointing out.

The Dash particularly loved the $532 shower curtain for the guest bath in the president's mansion. Maybe it previously was a framed exhibit in The Louvre.

Gee has rung up an $813,000 tailgating tab. Don't think they're drinking PBR at those tailgates. And the cornhole boards are made of platinum.

The newspaper said Gee also dropped more than 10 grand on limo service while traveling from 2008-10, which means you aren't likely to see him schlepping around the airport rental car facility when the Buckeyes go bowling. (Oops, they're ineligible to go bowling until next season anyways.)

Th guilded elite. Why, let them eat cake!

[vinoveri]

Re: The closing of American academia

Boy, this makes the $800k salary of the Director of Oak Ridge National Lab look like chump change.

Public servants, you're kidding me.

Smart folks with exceptional skills no doubt. Where are the market forces. All these folks are just very good politicians.